Why Is Mitch McConnell So Afraid of John Bolton? The Senate must hear his testimony..

Trumpet said:
The more scum that comes out about Trump, from this story, the worst it's going to be for the GOP in 2020, and that is why Moscow is trying to quell this impeachment hearing as quickly and as quietly as possible. Moscow has got quite a few seats to protect in 2020, to keep control of the senate.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Mitch wants a quick in and out, give Trump the "vindication" boast he wants while not endangering the position of those moderate GOP Senators

Today Mitch announced that the Senate might move ahead without any agreement with the Democrats on rules, saying calling witnesses can be determined once the procedures begin, like that is going to happen. He should, would only further portray the "trial" as the shame it already is and give Pelosi more cause to with hold the articles
 
Cinnabar said:
We all know the answer and that is the fact that Moscow Mitch is a criminal and aiding and abetting another criminal.
Click to expand...

Would Bolton's testimony change any Senate votes? Certainly not enough to get two-thirds.

Bolton can always give a TV interview or relay any relevant information if not called to testify.
 
Darth Omar said:
The way *impeachment* works, Frank, is the House builds the case—it’s their responsibility to gather evidence, not the Senate. The Senate’s role is to render a judgement on the case/articles sent to them by the House. And then either acquit or vote for removal of office.

Democrats had a shot at Bolton but they dropped the ball on it. The why doesn’t matter. The spin doesn’t matter. Democrat didn’t complete the investigation prior to passing the articles. It’s that simple.

And they did this for crass partisan purposes: they wanted Trump impeached by Christmas to appease their, radical, Trump hating base.
Click to expand...

No one knows exactly "how impeachment works," there is little in the Constitution and there has only been two over a century apart, and the Senate's role is to render a judgement, but after a fair trial, which according to Mitch isn't going to happen regardless

And this line of all evidence now being locked doesn't make any sense, if a trial is about to begin and the prosecutor comes across new evidence even before the trial begins, you are telling us he can't use it since it wasn't part of the original indictment? That is what you are saying
 
Moscow sez he's using the same rules the Senate used for Clinton's impeachment

another lie, the Senate got tons of grand jury testimony and sworn depositions in 1999
 
Cinnabar said:
We all know the answer and that is the fact that Moscow Mitch is a criminal and aiding and abetting another criminal.
Click to expand...

1. You claim he's guilty, you have enough evidence to prove it.
2. You claim you need more evidence to prove he's guilty.

Which is it? :dunno:

And Why wouldn't Naziy wait for the court's decision on the subpoena?
 
Last edited:
Flash said:
Would Bolton's testimony change any Senate votes? Certainly not enough to get two-thirds.

Bolton can always give a TV interview or relay any relevant information if not called to testify.
Click to expand...

I believe the Congress can still subpoena him but nevertheless, the American people need to hear all the witness testimony.
 
archives said:
No one knows exactly "how impeachment works," there is little in the Constitution and there has only been two over a century apart, and the Senate's role is to render a judgement, but after a fair trial, which according to Mitch isn't going to happen regardless

And this line of all evidence now being locked doesn't make any sense, if a trial is about to begin and the prosecutor comes across new evidence even before the trial begins, you are telling us he can't use it since it wasn't part of the original indictment? That is what you are saying
Click to expand...

Well, it’s pretty clear ‘how Impeachment will work’ in the future if republicans cave on this.

Republicans can do the same thing. Do a partial investigation ‘just to get that impeachment’ hung on the opposition president. And if leads to acquittal, ‘oh well, at least he’s impeached going into the next election’.

Is damaging Trump really worth that?

And again, why did House Democrats vote on the articles even though they knew they didn’t have Bolton’s testimony? Don’t try the ‘they had to hurry, because Trump might commit more crimes’ because that went out the window the minute Pelosi decided to sit on the articles.

Why did they do that?
 
Cinnabar said:
Why Is Mitch McConnell So Afraid of John Bolton?
Click to expand...

If Bolton's testimony is so crucial to the case, why didn't the house lift a finger to interview him? If his testimony is so critical to the case, how were they able to impeach without it? Shut the fuck up Owl, you fucking hack.
 
Darth Omar said:
Well, it’s pretty clear ‘how Impeachment will work’ in the future if republicans cave on this.

Republicans can do the same thing. Do a partial investigation ‘just to get that impeachment’ hung on the opposition president. And if leads to acquittal, ‘oh well, at least he’s impeached going into the next election’.

Is damaging Trump really worth that?

And again, why did House Democrats vote on the articles even though they knew they didn’t have Bolton’s testimony? Don’t try the ‘they had to hurry, because Trump might commit more crimes’ because that went out the window the minute Pelosi decided to sit on the articles.

Why did they do that?
Click to expand...

The setting precedent argument is lame, any House, past and present, could have done the same, and maybe they will, did you say Mitch set a dangerous precedent by making SCOTUS nominees just a majority vote thereby eliminating the role of the Senate as deliberating body as the Founders wanted and into a straight majority entity?

Cause they couldn't get Bolton's testimony, they couldn't get any one closely associated with Trump's testimony, nor could they obtain any relevant documents

And Pelosi sat on the arguments cause Mitch declared ahead of time that the trial was going to be anything but a trial, he was even going to work hand and hand with White House to insure it was anything but a trial, why would she proceed knowing everything was already set up as a shame?
 
countryboy said:
If Bolton's testimony is so crucial to the case, why didn't the house lift a finger to interview him? If his testimony is so critical to the case, how were they able to impeach without it? Shut the fuck up Owl, you fucking hack.
Click to expand...

No one said it was crucial to the case, keep in mind Bolton is only one of four witnesses the Democrats would like to see, and this is the first time that Bolton has come forward and said he was willing to answer a subpoena by the Senate to testify
 
Flash said:
Even if his testimony supported Trump's version of events?
Click to expand...

Well wouldn't Trump supporters want to know that? If they don't want the testimony it is clear that they are afraid of what will be revealed.
 
Last edited:
Flash said:
I was asking if you still wanted Bolton to testify if it exonerated Trump?
Click to expand...

Of course, but I would lay odds that the GOP and Trump would as well if ANY of the witnesses has ANY exculpatory evidence. That is called common sense so it's safe to say that they do not.
 
Last edited:
archives said:
The setting precedent argument is lame, any House, past and present, could have done the same, and maybe they will, did you say Mitch set a dangerous precedent by making SCOTUS nominees just a majority vote thereby eliminating the role of the Senate as deliberating body as the Founders wanted and into a straight majority entity?

Cause they couldn't get Bolton's testimony, they couldn't get any one closely associated with Trump's testimony, nor could they obtain any relevant documents

And Pelosi sat on the arguments cause Mitch declared ahead of time that the trial was going to be anything but a trial, he was even going to work hand and hand with White House to insure it was anything but a trial, why would she proceed knowing everything was already set up as a shame?
Click to expand...

Doesn’t work.

Democrats didn’t want to wait on Bolton’s testimony. All they had to do was wait for a judge to rule on it.

And we’re still waiting on the why?
 
Darth Omar said:
Doesn’t work.

Democrats didn’t want to wait on Bolton’s testimony. All they had to do was wait for a judge to rule on it.

And we’re still waiting on the why?
Click to expand...

Dems had no information on Bolton when Pelosi sat on the papers. She did that because Moscow made it clear he had no intention of having a fair trial, but instead he would work directly with the Whitehouse. Do rightys understand how terrible that is? It is the antithesis of American jurisprudence. Moscow said he was going to cheat and rightys were happy. If Trump was innocent he would throw a fair trial and prove it. That is not what he is doing. There is nothing redeeming about this mess for Trump, Moscow or America.
 
Nordberg said:
Dems had no information on Bolton when Pelosi sat on the papers. She did that because Moscow made it clear he had no intention of having a fair trial, but instead he would work directly with the Whitehouse. Do rightys understand how terrible that is? It is the antithesis of American jurisprudence. Moscow said he was going to cheat and rightys were happy. If Trump was innocent he would throw a fair trial and prove it. That is not what he is doing. There is nothing redeeming about this mess for Trump, Moscow or America.
Click to expand...

Casting pearls before swine.
 
Cinnabar said:
Of course, but I would lay odds that the GOP and Trump would as well if ANY of the witnesses has ANY exculpatory evidence. That is called common sense so it's safe to say that they do not.
Click to expand...

They don't really need any exculpatory evidence since they know they won't get enough Republican votes to convict.

Incriminating evidence will still not get the needed votes, so the only purpose would be getting negative publicity. While that would be good for Democrats, it is not the purpose of trials and would be a waste of time except for partisan influences.
 
Flash said:
Would Bolton's testimony change any Senate votes? Certainly not enough to get two-thirds.

Bolton can always give a TV interview or relay any relevant information if not called to testify.
Click to expand...

And that would do what? Credible witnesses appeared before the House committees and testified under oath -- and even then the Reichwing decided that they were lying. Do you think for a New York minute that they would believe Bolton in an interview, even on FOX, if he had damaging statements about TRE45ON?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top